PEBD changes for retirement

By Gina Harkins - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Sep 5, 2012 10:01:25 EDT
A Marine officer nearing retirement is fighting over a 24-year-old clerical error that now requires him to pay back nearly $6,000 in wages the service says he should not have earned.
Lt. Col. Colt Hubbell originally enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1987 while still a high school student, joining the service’s Delayed Entry Program six months before shipping off for boot camp. Throughout his 24-year career, the date he signed his enlistment contract was listed in his personnel records as his Pay Entry Base Date. And all of his longevity raises were processed based on that date.
But when Hubbell, who was commissioned and went active duty in 1992, called Marine Corps headquarters in March to square away the details of his retirement, he was told there had been a mistake — one he didn’t make that would cost him more than $5,900.
He learned that as part of a Defense Department policy change made in 2001, military personnel do not receive credit for delayed-entry time. That means his real Pay Entry Base Date is about six months later than his personnel records reflected, but somehow his paperwork was never updated.
In short, Hubbell received almost 24 years’ worth of raises six months too early. Suffice it to say, he’s not happy about the oversight.
“There are two things about Marines they say you shouldn’t mess with: their pay and their chow,” Hubbell told Marine Corps Times. “I don’t like that my pay is being messed with.”
A KC-130 tanker pilot by trade, Hubbell, 41, lives in Summerville, Ore., with his wife and two children. Hubbell moved to Oregon from Camp Pendleton, Calif., as he is on terminal leave in preparation for his retirement starting Nov. 1.
After Hubbell learned of the paperwork mistake, he made several phone calls and sent even more emails, he said, seeking to have the matter dropped. In May, while deployed to Afghanistan, he contacted Marine Corps Times, hoping to shed light on a situation that might affect other troops.
“I feel that this is unjust and should not be allowed to stand,” he said. “I have served my country for over 24 years. And now, as I ... am serving in Afghanistan, I’m forced to deal with this.”
The Corps’ position is this: An internal memorandum was distributed in 2001, after the Defense Department amended its Financial Management Regulation to reflect the new policy for creditable service time. Ultimately, Marine officials said, Hubbell has to pay back the money because the time between his contract signing and boot camp was not considered creditable service time.
The rules stated that delayed-entry time was no longer creditable, with no one grandfathered. Hubbell’s paperwork was never updated to reflect his Pay Entry Base Date: the day he arrived at boot camp.
“They failed to act upon this change or notify us of this change and continued to pay us at this rate for over another decade,” Hubbell said, suggesting he’s one of many service members nearing retirement who have been unpleasantly surprised to learn they owe the Pentagon money.
Of note, the language contained in Hubbell’s original enlistment contract identified the delayed-entry time as not creditable. His Pay Entry Base Date was simply listed incorrectly.
The rules were changed for officer candidates, too, but certain individuals who signed contracts between 1985 and 1989 were exempted because the language in their contracts was unclear.
“There were errors as a result of a misinterpretation of the law” as it applied to officers, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a spokeswoman for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
The Marine Corps found that 1,700 officer candidates were affected by the four-year period when contracts did not clearly define their pay-entry dates. But no similar audit has been done for enlisted Marines because their contract language stated that the service was not creditable.
Hubbell said that, as a result of this mess, he’ll bring in less retirement pay than he expected. He estimates it’ll translate to between $50 and $100 less per month for the rest of his life, or tens of thousands of dollars in the long term.
“To get notified of this as I’m preparing to retire is extremely disappointing,” Hubbell said. “To retroactively change something without your knowledge and then to just take your money away — it makes you lose a little faith in our government.”
Hubbell doesn’t think service members should be stuck with paying for the error. He has alerted his congressman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who has written to the Marine Corps in an effort to ensure that Hubbell gets all the benefits that he has earned, said Andrew Malcolm, Walden’s press secretary.
Hubbell also hopes that Marines in similar predicaments will question the pay adjustment. After all, there is strength in numbers — and they, too, could stand to lose thousands of dollars.

He estimates it’ll translate to between $50 and $100 less per month for the rest of his life, or tens of thousands of dollars in the long term.

I'm not sure where he is getting that figure, I'd like to see where 6 months is throwing that off. I understand where they got the figure for what they are taking back, but I dont get how it is affecting his retirement. Unless he is six months away from another pay increase now because of this? I would think it would just be wiser to postpone the retirement for six months.

I'm not sure where he is getting that figure, I'd like to see where 6 months is throwing that off. I understand where they got the figure for what they are taking back, but I dont get how it is affecting his retirement. Unless he is six months away from another pay increase now because of this? I would think it would just be wiser to postpone the retirement for six months.

+1. You read my mind and I thought the same thing when I read the article.

Comment

Just so everyone knows, this pertains to Active Duty and the Delayed Entry Program. For the Guard, your PEBD is the day you sign your contract at MEPS.

From what I recently discovered, that may not be the case if you enlisted between January 1, 1985 and November 28, 1989. For whatever reason, months you drill before goign to basic training are not "creditable service" and DFAS will adjust your PEBD accordingly.

I came into the Army Reserves under the DEP in Jan 1983 and left to basic in July 1983. I served to 91 and then my break of service occurred. My DIEMS still shows Jan 1983 and my BASD has been changed to the new year after my break. I figure with my entrance to the Guard in 98 and my transfer to active service in 2004, will have me at the correct Pay Date for pay. Nobody wants this drama when its time to hang it up.

Comment

DODFMR Volume 7A Chapter 1 Paragraph 010101 D. 12. DFAS just took back four months of creditable service I had from Feb 1989 to Jun 1989. I did drills but according to them, as of a Sep 2001 change, it is no longer creditable. DFAS IG agrees.